Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[abc123]

Netherland and Belgium getting in total 4 (2+2) frigates optimized for ASW, and start entering service from the mid-2020s.
http://navaltoday.com/2016/11/14/belgiu ... placement/

2 billion euros for 4 frigates + 6 minehunters?

Fools! Don't they know that for that money they can get one Type 26 frigate?

[donald_of_tokyo]

Netherland and Belgium getting in total 4 (2+2) frigates optimized for ASW, and start entering service from the mid-2020s.
http://navaltoday.com/2016/11/14/belgiu ... placement/

2 billion euros for 4 frigates + 6 minehunters?
Fools! Don't they know that for that money they can get one Type 26 frigate?

I read the article that, it is 4B Euro in total. In other words, 2B Euro for 2 frigates and 6 mine hunters.

guess
- MCMV with 150M Euro unit cost (130M GBP)--> 150 x (12 +2 design) = 2.1B Euro total, 1.05B Euro each country.
- light frigate with 350M Euro unit cost (305M GBP)--> 350 x (4 + 2 design) = 2.1B Euro total, 1.05B Euro each country.
like this, may be...? Both a very tight cost, I think.

[RetroSicotte]

Can anybody answer this, is Artisan 3D an AESA radar?

I believe it's based on a scaled down Sampson, and I have vague memories of reading something mentioning it was, but since cannot find more and lists on wiki seem to not have it any longer. I think I even answered someone asking this myself a while back, but have since become uncertain.

Anyone got any real info on just what Artisan is?

[RetroSicotte]

Answering partially for myself:

"BAE has confirmed with DID that Artisan will use a passive phased array design."

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/bri ... kes-04403/

So, a PESA.

That's quite disappointing in a world where AESA is now the baseline standard for new ships.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Donald, your approach is a valid one. How sensitive is the outcome to the benchmark, would it look any different, say, with South Africa's MEKOs?

I do not think my analysis may change a lot.

My favorite "blue water light frigate" is Dutch M-class. Originally designed to carry passive TASS (= design to be at lease "so so" quiet), and now added with LFAS TASS, I understand they are "so so" good ASW vessel. However, they are 3300t FLD, too small for good modernization, and do not carry 127mm gun.

Actually, for me Spartan look like "enlarged M-class", added with mission bay, 16-cell VLS space, replace 76 mm gun with 127 mm. In other words, at least 1500t extension will be needed = 4800t or so.

[ArmChairCivvy]

for me Spartan look like "enlarged M-class", added with mission bay, 16-cell VLS space, replace 76 mm gun with 127 mm. In other words, at least 1500t extension will be needed = 4800t or so.

That might well be. But does the original ("M") have the endurance that would qualify it for Blue Water navy ops?

[donald_of_tokyo]

M-class: 30 day endurance, 5000nm range at 18knot (converted to 15knot, it will be 6000 nm). "so so" in Todays standard, but enough in late 1990s standard (as we all remember how T22 was).
So, that's why it is more easy to use ANZAC as a benchmark: 6000nm range at 18 knots. (converted to 15knot, it will be 7200 nm), with 127mm gun and RNZN version getting 24 CAMM soon.

But anyway the point is, both will give similar conclusion as a benchmark.

[abc123]

Netherland and Belgium getting in total 4 (2+2) frigates optimized for ASW, and start entering service from the mid-2020s.
http://navaltoday.com/2016/11/14/belgiu ... placement/

2 billion euros for 4 frigates + 6 minehunters?
Fools! Don't they know that for that money they can get one Type 26 frigate?

I read the article that, it is 4B Euro in total. In other words, 2B Euro for 2 frigates and 6 mine hunters.

guess
- MCMV with 150M Euro unit cost (130M GBP)--> 150 x (12 +2 design) = 2.1B Euro total, 1.05B Euro each country.
- light frigate with 350M Euro unit cost (305M GBP)--> 350 x (4 + 2 design) = 2.1B Euro total, 1.05B Euro each country.
like this, may be...? Both a very tight cost, I think.

Even better, that's two Type 26 frigates, maybe even 3.

[donald_of_tokyo]

2B Euro is 1.7B GBP, which is 2.35 T26 unit cost. (3.4B GBP is 4.7 T26 unit cost.)

# Requiring design cost in export is not a good idea. Train your industry to improve for industrial efficiency, then you will get benefit, which is far better than "getting design costs payed". Maintenance contract, continued national relation, larger and efficient maintenance system, and well-trained labour force. I think France does this.

For Belguim, 2 (light) frigates and 6 MCMV is much more valuable than 2 T26 and 1.5 MCMV.

[ArmChairCivvy]

that's why it is more easy to use ANZAC as a benchmark: 6000nm range at 18 knots. (converted to 15knot, it will be 7200 nm), with 127mm gun and RNZN version getting 24 CAMM soon.

Thanks Donald, I agree with your rationale.

For Belguim, 2 (light) frigates and 6 MCMV is much more valuable than 2 T26 and 1.5 MCMV.

Exactly. Their partner (NL) had a "requirement" to be able to patrol on the other side of the Atlantic. Meeting that requirement came to cost them in numbers*) that can be surface combatants, closer to home... but in the day there was little emphasis on that requirement.

-----------
*) from navatoday: "The Belgian and Dutch Navy operate two multi-purpose or Karel Dorman-class frigates each. The Netherlands initially operated eight vessels in the class. Between 2004 and 2006, six of the eight ships were sold to the navies of Belgium, Chile and Portugal."
- relative to these old ones, ASW will have an emphasis in their replacements

[seaspear]

I understand the ANZAC class was designed to carry a towed asw but was never fitted with it.

[ArmChairCivvy]

The way I read one of Donald's comments is that the class (design) was stuffed so full that the Ops room for TAS did not fit in (without increasing the size... the installed power... the price; as we do over here)?

[Digger22]

No. I still don't see why we need so mush displacement for this 'Light' Frigate. The cost and size will kill this off at this rate. We will have no gain over just building base T26 and spreading cost of upgrade's over decades, if needed.
Batch 3 Type 42 GMD were 5350 tons FULL load! And that was a Great Big Destroyer!
Comparisons with earlier ships are very relevant, purely in terms of Displacement v Volume and bulk/Weight of associated systems, as we have seen with T23 upgrades, things are getting smaller and lighter, and Physics is still Physics! Everything that we currently see on HMS Daring would have fitted easily within HMS York for example.
Unless this project looks amazing value for money T31 will not happen, and building an oversized ship, even if 'future' proof (where the future means everything will suddenly get bigger and heavier, or we suddenly find ourselves in a position to actually properly grow them during their service lifes) will jeopardize it.
The choice is clear, more smaller ships or more base T26 or nothing.
This may have to be one of the best bits of Naval design (T31) and procurement in History for it to succeed.

[ArmChairCivvy]

"BAE has confirmed with DID that Artisan will use a passive phased array design."

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/bri ... kes-04403/

So, a PESA.

That's quite disappointing in a world where AESA is now the baseline standard for new ships.

I was left a bit baffled by this "knock-out" and looked onto another forum:
"Artisan at BAE site
[that was supposed to be a live link, but did not come through as such?] will hopefully put to rest the "Artisan is crap" argument.

Max instrumented range >200km

Max track declaration vs missile >35km [ So could use CAMM-ER to a good effect]
Radar horizon for T26/artisan Vs sea skimming missile is ~29km. So a 35km capability vs missiles is fine imho.

Max track declaration vs MPA >135km

3D tracking capacity (air and surface) >800 targets (very high for any class of radar)

"Immunity" to jamming due to frequency agility and digital adaptive beamforming. (This is unique to class, and very similar to Sampson I believe.) In practice I doubt if any radar is truly totally immune, but it looks like Artisan is as good as Sampson in this regard. Which is to say, very good.

MTBCF >4000hours, but as the transmitter is an array of transisters, a single failure point means degradation and not total failure of the array. So a step change in reliability over the previous T23 radar.
[...] radar may also have LPI, as it has all the necessary technology to enable it"

[ArmChairCivvy]

You can down load a 7.35MB Artisan data sheet from here:
http://www.baesystems.com/en/product/ar ... r-type-997

The old link was dead, likely that the website had been reorganised (still a nightmare to navigate... hello BAE PR folks!)

[Timmymagic]

You can down load a 7.35MB Artisan data sheet from here:
http://www.baesystems.com/en/product/ar ... r-type-997

The old link was dead, likely that the website had been reorganised (still a nightmare to navigate... hello BAE PR folks!)

You can down load a 7.35MB Artisan data sheet from here:
http://www.baesystems.com/en/product/ar ... r-type-997

The old link was dead, likely that the website had been reorganised (still a nightmare to navigate... hello BAE PR folks!)

And there's also this interesting article on ARTIST the US/UK technology demonstration programme that led to Artisan. By all accounts focusing on the antenna distracts from the other aspects of a radar system, which from what people are saying is really very, very good.

http://www.daspworkshop.org/uploads/DAS ... r_Bill.pdf

[donald_of_tokyo]

No. I still don't see why we need so mush displacement for this 'Light' Frigate. The cost and size will kill this off at this rate. We will have no gain over just building base T26 and spreading cost of upgrade's over decades, if needed.

3000-3500t light frigate is doable, I agree. No problem. But, 3500t frigate with 127mm gun, 24 CAMM, 16 strike length VLS, large mission bay, as well as aviation for 1 mid-helo, and so so range, will not be able within 3500t. This is my point.

Batch 3 Type 42 GMD were 5350 tons FULL load! And that was a Great Big Destroyer!
Comparisons with earlier ships are very relevant, purely in terms of Displacement v Volume and bulk/Weight of associated systems, as we have seen with T23 upgrades, things are getting smaller and lighter, and Physics is still Physics! Everything that we currently see on HMS Daring would have fitted easily within HMS York for example.

Sorry, I do not agree. If it fits in T42B3, T45s will be build in that size. If you are saying an escort with AAW-capability similar to HMS York can be small, yes, 2700t Khareef's AAW capability is better than that of York in many sense (except range).

The choice is clear, more smaller ships or more base T26 or nothing.
This may have to be one of the best bits of Naval design (T31) and procurement in History for it to succeed.

On this sentence, I totally agree. T31 must be small. That's why I do not push Spartan, which cannot be small, although the ship itself is very nice looking.

Again, how can you imagine Spartan with "all" equipped can be 3500t? See ANZAC, what are you going to cut to place all the additional equipments?

If you are saying, "new USV/UUV for MCM/ASW/ASuW capability with a size of RHIB can be there", it is good. No need for mission bay, and just rename RHIB davit as "multi-mission off-board system davit". If a 76mm gun with Volcano can do what 127mm gun now does, just replace large 127mm gun with small 76 mm. NSM has land attack mode, so strike-length VLS can be banned, nicely.

From these "technology improvements", yes, a "so so good" light frigate can emerge.

[Digger22]

Well put d-of-T. We will have to agree to disagree on some points though.
Are you saying that this 'Light' frigate should have TLACM capability or similar?
I don't see the need.

[donald_of_tokyo]

As I am saying many times, no TLAM needed on T31. Light frigate is light frigate. In other words, a full-frigate T26 is large not just for fun. The requirements made so. Thus, a light frigate must be with significantly less requirements than T26. This is what I meant. And this is why I think Spartan (as armed as in the brochure) is out of scope for T31.

[Repulse]

I'd say the best offensive capability for a T31 (Sloop) would be a double hangar to allow 2 Wildcats to be carried. Add a medium gun and CAMM and it's a solid patrol package, especially if the RN stumped up for a dipping sonar for the Wildcat.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Now we see the plan for 8 T26 with £8b till 2036 (hull-1=2022, h2=24, h3=26, h4=28, h5=30, h6=32, h7=34, h8=36, possibly with ~2 years delay). Then, argument on T31 has two aspects.
Q1: Does RN need to keep APT-S and 2nd Kipion both with escort = if RN do need 19 escorts.
Q2: Cost. Anyway, there will not be much budget left (If left, there shall be 13 T26, as originally planned). Let's assume £0b, £2b or £3b cases. (If £0b nothing can be done, so no discussion needed.)

If Q1=no, just buy as many T26 as possible. In £2b/£3b cases, 2/3 more T26 (with £0.8B each, incl. CAPTAS4) and £400M/600M left. If RN reduce escort number NOW, another £300/200M can be gained by disbanding 3/2 T23 without modernization. RN can use this budget to get NSM (T23/45), land atack missle (T26), and some OPVs (maybe 2 slightly extended River B2 with a Wildcat for £250M or so). (Options-C)

--------

If Q1=yes, one idea will be to mix T26 and patrol/light frigates.
-Option-A2_1T26-4PF200: In £2b case, 1 T26 and 4 PF with £1.2B total, which means £200M unit cost, assuming 2-unit cost for design .
-Option-A3_2T26-3LF280: In £3b case, 2 T26 and 3 light-"light frigates" with £1.4B (= £280M unit cost).

If pollitically T26 cannot be increased, then we need 5 light frigates.
-Option-B2_5LF285: In £2b case, unit cost will be £285M
-Option-B3_5LF429: in £3b case £429M

So, options are
- Patrol Frigate (PF) with ~£200M unit cost
- GP light-light frigate (LLF) with ~£280M unit cost
- GP light frigate (GPLF) with ~£430M unit cost

For me,
- £430M GPLF is Venator 110, with 110x18m, CODAD 4000t FLD 6000nm@15kt, 127mm gun, 24CAMM, 2-Wildcat capable hangar, 8 NSM and HMS (ORC slope astern or CAPTAS4CI FFBNW).
- £280M LLF is (a bit smaller) Cutlass (=extended Khareef), with 112(99+13)x15m CODAE 3300t FLD 5500nm@15kt, 127mm gun, 12 (+12 FFBNW) CAMM, 1-Wildcat capable hangar, 4 NSM and HMS.
- £200M PF is "re-arranged Khareef", with 99x14.6m CODOE 2700t 5500nm@15kt, 127mm gun, 20mm CIWS and a Wildcat.

GPLF can do both APT-S and 2nd Kipion with reduced ASW capability. LLF can do APT-S, but 2nd Kipion with only self-defense and "show the flag" (important). PF can do APT-S will less capability, but may not be sent to Kipion. So, this option partly violates Q1. This is why I think "£280M LLF a bit smaller Cutlass" will be good. (of course my favourite is "as much T26 as possible" = Options-C, but Q1 stops me).


P.S.1 If Spartan excludes Mk.41 VLS, and make her mission bay much smaller = the same requirement list as Venator 110, it can also be a candidate for £430M GPLF.

P.S.2 On sonar, propose to use CAPTAS-1 in place of good HMS (S2050 or even MFS7000). Towed away from the hull, CAPTAS-1 will be more tolerrant against hull noise, but still cheap. Still HMS is needed, but a simple mine-avoidance sonar can do in this case. Also, since CAPTAS-1 is not superb, RN will not call it ASW escort.

[donald_of_tokyo]

If Q1=no, just buy as many T26 as possible. In £2b/£3b cases, 2/3 more T26 (with £0.8B each, incl. CAPTAS4) and £400M/600M left. If RN reduce escort number NOW, another £300/200M can be gained by disbanding 3/2 T23 without modernization. RN can use this budget to get NSM (T23/45), land atack missle (T26), and some OPVs (maybe 2 slightly extended River B2 with a Wildcat for £250M or so). (Options-C)

Sorry "post-in-a-row", but this is my favorite options, so I want to add some. Even if the remaining cost is £2B, we can
- get 2 more T26 with CAPTAS4 (or 4CI) with £800M each = £1.6b. (in total 10 T26)
- omit 24-cell Mk.41 VLS (now anyway empty) from 5 of them, to save ~£40M x5 = ~£200M.
- disband 2 T23 by 2022 without modernization and save ~£200M.
This will give £0.8B left.

I propose to build 2 CAPTAS-4CI towing ship, only armed with CIWS and no helo-hangar, specialized for task around Faslane. This will take £300M in total, I guess, and free-up 2 T26 reserved for TAPS. (a fleet of, 2 CVF, 6 T45, 10 T26ASW (5 with Mk.41 VLS and 5 without), 2 CAPTAS-carrier-OPV for TAPS and 5 River B2 OPVs).

Then, with £500M left, I will buy 10 set of 8 NSMs (missile is $5Mx8 = $40M, but needs control electronics in addition, so assume £50M = $65M per set), to be onboard 6 T45 and 11 left T23 or 5 T26 without Mk.41 VLS.

I also need >120 TLAMs for the 5 T26s with VLS. This will cost as high as £200M, but NOW is the good moment, because US has ordered a lot and its unit cost is among the lowest. Do it NOW, as a iterium solution (anyway new French-Britiain ASM is far far away and much much expensive...). To do this, I need to cut NSM or find another budget. I think RN shall stop collaboration with France and just get US missiles, if RN want the best effect vs cost. TLAM block IV order is for 4000 (!!) missiles, mass production wins with this large number. I bet RN can buy 2-3 US missiles out of the cost for 1 UK-Franco missile in future.

[ArmChairCivvy]

- £280M LLF is (a bit smaller) with 112(99+13)x15m CODAE 3300t FLD 5500nm@15kt, 127mm gun, 12 (+12 FFBNW) CAMM, 1-Wildcat capable hangar, 4 NSM and HMS.

LLF can do APT-S, but 2nd Kipion with only self-defense and "show the flag" (important).

Check out the two $325m 114m frigates for Philippines (from Korea) as a costing comparison. It was an open competition so there is lots of data.
- they were also shrunk down from a bigger Korean Navy design, so adding back some displacement for endurance and a bigger gun should not be a problem ( a diesel only vessel as opposed to its cousins in Korea)

[GibMariner]

Does RN need to keep APT-S and 2nd Kipion both with escort = if RN do need 19 escorts.

We can't manage either of those now, even with the (on-paper) 19 escorts, largely due to manpower shortage.

The last two South Atlantic patrols have been done as part of wider deployments:
In 2015 HMS Lancaster was deployed to the North Atlantic, Pacific South America, through to the South Atlantic and to West Africa.
In 2016/17 HMS Portland patrolled the South Atlantic, taking the long way home after a Kipion deployment.

Since last year, it has either been a destroyer OR frigate on Kipion, not both at the same time (minus overlap as one returns and the other arrives on station).

Do we need to keep those deployments? Yes.

[ArmChairCivvy]

The last two South Atlantic patrols have been done as part of wider deployments:
In 2015 HMS Lancaster was deployed to the North Atlantic, Pacific South America, through to the South Atlantic and to West Africa.
In 2016/17 HMS Portland patrolled the South Atlantic, taking the long way home after a Kipion deployment.

Since last year, it has either been a destroyer OR frigate on Kipion, not both at the same time (minus overlap as one returns and the other arrives on station).

Just proves that the standing tasks are a mantra, repeated when some cause needs promoting, but skipping them at will is kept quiet.

The T31 forward positioning has been officially mentioned (by RN itself, in a naval show in the Gulf). Actually doing that (and at the same time relieving some costly design constraints) is the way forward... also for getting to the both-and referred to in the above quote.
- there are three airbases (well, two, as ours is within the US base), including the French one in the area
- relative to that, having only Bahrain (again us within the American wire) is not proportionate, and also puts the eggs too much (politically, as we have seen lately: America backing the side that kicked them out of their base and being critical of those who invited them in... with facilities to match!) in the same basket